"Going"

A NIGHT AT THE NEW BIBLE MUSEUM

On November 17, 2017, a new Bible Museum will open in Washington, D.C., which cost half a billion dollars, according to a Washington Post article printed in the Orlando Sentinel on October 22nd. Three women collaborated on the story, which appeared on page A10. That’s right—$500,000,000 was spent on the project, which was begun ten years ago. So, who has that much green to spend? Ironically enough, it is the Green family—the owners of Hobby Lobby.

Yes, this is the craft store that does not open for business on Sundays. It was not too many years ago that Hobby Lobby faced off against, uh, opponents before the Supreme Court. The reason for stuttering in print is that the three ladies writing the story do not say who that opposition was or who won the battle. A check with the Internet will refresh everyone’s memory. The suit challenged provisions of Obamacare that required employers to pay for their employees’ birth control. The court voted 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby (apparently Kennedy was on the side of the law that time). These few facts might have been included in this article but were not.

They did have room, however, to include in the same paragraph something of a derogatory nature. Immediately after explaining the challenge to “all forms of mandatory conception coverage,” the following criticism appears:

The family’s lightning fast acquisition of troves of historic artifacts wound up in federal court, landing them a $3 million fine for trafficking in thousands of smuggled goods.

No—no further comments about it. Did the female reporters deliberately place it here to counter-balance Hobby Lobby’s standing up for religious freedom? Is the purpose here to indicate, “They’re not so holy and righteous”? Of course, no rationale or defense on the company’s part was supplied—if they had one. This is the logical fallacy of tu quoque, which is Latin and loosely translated, “Ok, we’re dirty rotten scoundrels, but so are you.” At any rate, we only digress because the writers of this article did.

The museum contains state of the art technology. Reportedly, there is a motion ride that sprays water. It was not mentioned if this was in connection with the crossing of the Red Sea. The 430,000 square-foot facility contains children’s arcade games. According to the women reporters, the museum sports a “sensory room with images of animals, minor-key music and creaking boat sounds” which are designed to highlight the “chaos” that allegedly reigned (no pun intended) on Noah’s Ark. Really? In what Scripture is this chaos mentioned? The writers suggest that this approach is “a marked contrast” to the Ark Encounter in Kentucky. Is such a distinction necessary?

Sdrawkcab?

Allegedly, one will be awed when first entering the “two 40-foot, 2.5 ton bronze doors, which have on them the text of Genesis 1 in Latin—and written backwards.” Could we have a show of hands on how many Bible students have always wanted to read Latin even forwards? Okay, so maybe the sdrawkcab letters are to demonstrate something about the way the printing press works. Fair enough. But Genesis 1 was written in Hebrew—not Latin, and the Hebrew actually is written to be read from right to left—backward from our system. In the case of the museum doors, however, the letters appear to be backward, period.

The New Testament was written in Greek. Why highlight the Latin? Jerome did translate the Vulgate around AD 400, and it was used for one thousand years—by Catholics. Is this the reason for such a prominent display of backwards Latin? Whatever the rationale, it was not mentioned in the article

Strengths or Weaknesses?

On the positive side, the museum has “vivid walk-through re-creations of the ancient world,” “a garden of Biblical plants,” and “one of the world’s largest collections of Torahs.” More details as to what those ancient scenes are might have been helpful, but the article concentrates on a different aspect of the museum—its impartial presentation of the Bible. How is that to be taken? According to the reporters, it means:

The museum doesn’t encourage visitors to take the Bible literally, or to believe that the Bible has only one correct form.

Interesting! Further elaboration on these points are scattered throughout the article. The first explanation is that the Green family seemed to promise something different when they first began the project. And what was their purpose in the beginning? The original statement declared that the museum would “bring to life the living word of God…to inspire confidence in the absolute authority of the Bible.”

Certainly that goal was praiseworthy because the Bible has been under attack for more than 200 years. Higher critics have tried their best to undermine it by citing books that are not in the Bible—most of which are obviously uninspired. Those “scholars” who haunt the History Channel do not believe the Bible actually came from God. Like the Jesus Seminar, they are openly hostile to the idea that the Bible is God-breathed, as the writers claim (2 Tim. 3:16-17). And these are supposed to be the Bible’s “friends”? Then there are the evolutionists and atheists who have tried (and failed) to assault the Bible from without. A museum that could combat these errors would be great!

Although such a facility would have been welcomed by Christians, somewhere along the line the emphasis changed. This statement was given by Steve Green, who is the CEO of Hobby Lobby and Chairman of the latest tourist attraction in Washington:

The museum has fence posts—limits. It doesn’t overtly say the Bible is good, that the Bible is true. That’s not its role. Its role is to present facts and let people make their own decisions.

For those who live on a diet of gobbledegook, this should serve as at least a month’s supply. They spent a half a billion dollars, and they can’t even tell people that the Bible is true? What could be more incredible than that? Can anyone find a science museum that just presents known facts and allows the public to make up their own minds about evolution? Does a German history museum just present the facts and let the public decide whether or not there was a holocaust?

“All the museum asks about the Bible: Just try reading it” (A10). Many have done so and quit because they do not have an overview and are not studying it in a systematic way. They read a little here and a little there, become confused, and give up. For half a billion dollars, there might be some clues as to what’s in it and how to read it. Of course, that might be construed as being evangelistic, and apparently Mr. Green does not want to be perceived that way. Yes, just provide comments that are “broad” and “sometimes abstract.” That way, people who did not have a clear understanding when they came can leave the same way!

The director of the museum says, “Our goal isn’t to give answers but to arouse curiosity.” Okay, I’m curious—curious as to why anyone would take such an inane approach. As the reporters point out,

This museum doesn’t try to prove the historical veracity of the Bible, or argue that the Earth is about 6,000 years old like the Creation Museum in Kentucky.

Which is an excellent reason to visit the Creation Museum in Kentucky. People need to know the fallacies of the dating techniques that are used, as well as the evidence for the young Earth. They will not get it in schools or universities. Apparently, they will not be so informed by the Bible Museum in D.C., either. Perhaps the most remarkable criticism of this Bible-centered Facility is this fact:

Jesus is also curiously not central to the museum’s presentation of the Biblical story. Visitors walk through a multi-room saga of the Old Testament, and can visit a re-creation of the first-century village in Galilee where actors will tell them what the villagers think of this controversial preacher Jesus. They can watch a movie about John the Baptist. But the story of Jesus’ crucifixion is almost absent.

Really? Jesus is central to the Bible. At the very moment God calls Adam and Eve to account for the first sin committed, He also tells them that someone (the seed of woman) is coming who was to bruise the head of Satan (Gen. 3:15). God gave Abraham three promises, one of which is that someone is coming. Yes, through Abraham’s seed will come One through Whom all the nations of the world will be blessed (Gen. 22:18). That seed was Christ (Gal. 3:8, 16; 4:4).

The remainder of the Old Testament is the history of the nation through which Jesus would come. It contains many prophecies of Jesus, such as the one about Him being “the prophet” and lawgiver to come (Deut. 18:15, 18-19). Jesus is also the seed of David, who would be King (2 Sam. 7:12-13, 16). His kingdom would be set up in the days of the Roman kings (Dan. 2:44). He was to be born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2). He was to be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14). The Old Testament points to Jesus. The New Testament reveals Jesus (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). The Book of Acts discusses what occurred in His kingdom, the church. The epistles have to do with the purpose and the character of Christians. Revelation describes His church triumphant.

How can any institution dedicated to the Bible ignore the central figure being discussed in it? The Old and New Testaments are about sin and the redemption that comes only through Jesus. The New Testament describes the Redeemer and how salvation is made available to all mankind. It further describes the church-kingdom over which Jesus is head. In the pages of the Holy Scriptures, we meet many people who are important in one way or another, but there is only one Saviour. How can He not be central?

A big display features “the Virgin Mary, a biblical figure whom evangelicals believe has been elevated too highly by Catholics.” Such is the truth whether or not anyone believes it. They insist that she always remained a virgin even though the Bible says Jesus had brothers and sisters. They teach that she ascended into Heaven, as Jesus did, although the Scriptures do not say so. And they teach that she prays for human beings now and in the hour of their death. On what basis is that taught? No Scripture confirms such an idea. Mary is worthy of honor—but Catholicism does elevate her beyond what the Bible prescribes.

One prominent historian said that the Bible Museum desired to make people think fondly of the Bible’s impact on American history, adding: “But I did think they were trying to be as non-partisan as they could.” How does one be partisan with the Bible? By insisting that it is true? What value does trying to remain neutral have? One “scholar” already complained that the museum was not neutral enough. Those who are enemies of the Bible will never be satisfied with efforts to “tone it down.” If not all can be satisfied, why not uphold the truth, which was the original intention? God expects every person to be a good steward over what He has entrusted to him. That being the case, the museum may prove to be a waste of money.

Those who do not know what they are saying shouldn’t be: